AI Summary:
Overview:
- Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
- Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
- Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
- Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
- Company explains they don’t make blanket claims of “never selling data” due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
- Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.
“I am doing things that are not selling your data which some people consider to be selling your data”
Why is he so cryptic? Neil, why don’t you tell me what those things are and let me be the judge?
Louis Rossmann had a good video about this. Basically, California passed a law that changed what “selling your data” means, and it goes way beyond what I consider “selling your data.” There’s an argument here than Mozilla is largely just trying to comply with the law. Whether that’s accurate remains to be seen though.
Then how about putting that in the language? “We don’t sell your data, except if you’re in California, because they consider x, y and z things we might actually do as selling data.”
Exactly!
Hetzner kind of does this, where there’s a separate EULA for US customers that lays out precisely how they’re screwing you in that jurisdiction (e.g. forced arbitration). I’m not happy about that, but I appreciate having a separate, region-specific TOS.
If some wording only applies in California, state that. Or if it’s due to similar laws elsewhere, then state that. And then detail which features collect data, why, what control you have, and how you can opt-out. Maybe have a separate mini-TOS/EULA for each major component that gets into details.
But just saying “you give us a license to everything you do on Firefox” may appease their legal counsel, but it doesn’t appease many of their users, especially since they largely appeal to people who care about privacy.
At this point I care about ownership of what I do on my browser, Chrome under these guidelines is a better alternative (and that’s a low bar)
How is chrome better? It’s literally run by an ad company, and there’s no way they have a better TOS.
It’s not it’s just slightly less bad than Firefox on the perspective of ownership,
E.g.: under the new guidelines by Mozilla you’re not allowed to bookmark pornhub
This is thanks to Mozilla’s focus on “privacy respecting “ advertisement and ai, go to any open source conference and you’ll see a list of ai talks by them.
——
Don’t get me wrong I implore anyone to move to any browser that isn’t; Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera
I’m gonna need some evidence for that.
The only thing that’s “worse” about Firefox’s TOS IMO is that it gives them the right to “sell” your data, which seems to mostly apply to their business deals with advertisers (e.g. Google search and Pocket). Google doesn’t need that because they are the advertiser.
With Firefox, you can disable Pocket and change the search engine and you’re probably good. With chrome, you can’t really get away from it, especially since you can’t install an effective ad blocker anymore.
Brave’s TOS are better, but I only use them as a backup because I believe strongly in alternative rendering engines. For that reason I still recommend Firefox, though with an asterisk that they should consider a fork if they don’t want to disable defaults.
deleted by creator
I think this is a reasonable explanation.
But I also believe a large part of the firefox user base does not want any data about them collected by their browser, no matter if it is for commercial purposes or simply analytics / telemetry. Which is why the original statement “we will never sell any of your data” was just good enough for them, and anything mozilla is now saying is basically not good enough, no matter how much they clarify it to mean “not selling in the colloquial sense”
Which is a ridiculous thing to want for most users and exposes how little so much of the self-identified “techie” crowd actually understands about how this stuff works.
The first 6 years of Firefox were done without telemetry and after it was implemented it was opt-in for a while.
While I see the use of telemetry for development purposes, I would not call it aridiculous thing to not want
I more meant that the average user actually wants a significant amount of data collection and telemetry, as part of their normal web usage. There are some true privacy geeks who are actually maintaining near-anonymity on the modern internet, but there’s a lot of people who get riled up about things like this while using Android phones, or signing up for loyalty programs, using corporate social media, etc.
I agree, I don’t want my browser provider to collect any data on me at all, but if they absolutely must gather the absolute minimum system analytics stats or such they should NEVER pass it to a third party for ANY reason.
You make a desktop browser application, that’s your job, to provide a portal to the world wide web, nothing more. Stay within your bounds and we’ll never have any problem.
I mean…if they pay for the service of external analization of data in exchange of money, how is that a sale of goods/data?
deleted by creator
I would definitely call that selling my data. The recipient can now add that to my profile as an interest.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure this person is making a joke using a fake exaggerated “answer” from a corporation to highlight the absurdity of their double speak. I doubt something this insane would come from an actual spokesperson.
I’m getting that now too. I don’t know the players in Mozilla. The quote without context made me think this was one of those Mozilla execs.
“ChatGPT, I need your help. Please pretend to be a lawyer that recently suffered a severe concussion and write me something I can post online that will male this situation slightly weirder.”
Neil doesn’t need a chatbot with sparkles for that, he’s plenty capable to take absolute piss himself. 😁
some people consider indirect, cryptic answers to be complete
Really? I would think most would consider them for what they are: evasive and probably deceptive
all sorts of people are super satisfied with answers that don’t answer the question….
people tell me that all the time….
vague to be exact, keeping it vague, so its up for interpretation on thier part, and they can use the vagueness as an excuse.
Oh, it’s perfectly clear. We got the message. Mozilla are not to be trusted with our data.
Reread it, double negative.
Edit: oops, sorry. Removed this myself for being wrong.